Circle of escalation: Difference between revisions

A [[salesperson]] approaches you with what is, on its face, a narrow and uncontroversial question — one to which, in your direct recollection, the salesperson already knows the answer. This is a sure sign the [[salesperson]] is indulging in some kind of [[compliance arbitrage]] — probably of the less odious kind, where he does present the whole picture to the necessary internal control functions — but in several<ref>''Legally'' several that is - in the sense of “not joint”.</ref> instalment, each thinly sliced so as to present each controller only with those facts the salesperson considers germane to its decision (and helpful to her cause).

Hedging your own bets, you adopt the standard approach: [[Limp celery|''ostensible'' approval]], with caveats deep enough for you to jump into and hide in later on, should shots ring out in the aftermath.

:“''This is okay with me, but you need to confirm with {{tag|Tax}},''” you say, happy that you have passed the tangled skein off your desk.  

Of course, the tangled skein has not magically winked out of existence: it has simply landed on the desk of some poor, overworked blighter in Tax whose aspiration will be exactly the same as yours, and whom, to fulfill it, will take exactly the same approach you did:

:“''There may be an increased risk of retrospective withholding which it is hard to quantify,''” she will say (when one gives tax advice for a living one gets adept at saying this sort of thing by rote) “''but as long as the desk is prepared to absorb that additional risk then [[I have no objections]] to this.''”